State Adopts Jury Nullification Jurors Can Question Law

[jillian]

IOW, she was acquitted.

There was never any question as to whether voting her conscience was unlawful, as she freely admitted doing so...Hence, no legal sanction for doing so...Not even the contempt of court charge held up.

Ergo, nullification is both lawful and legal.

not the holding of the court.

 

[jillian]

You should read the dissent in Renico v Lett. I tend to agree that it takes a pretty strange ability to ignore the constitution to be able to read the 5th Amendment and allow the government another shot at a conviction just because the judge is upset that the state might lose.

Bloomberg Law - Document - Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 176 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2010), Court Opinion



Yes, he can, and higher courts can step in and reverse the sanctions. Feel free to point out any examples of a jury being held in contempt for nullifying a law that were not reversed by a higher court. Every example I have found has been of them being overturned.

you know that a dissent has no legal authority, right?

You know that it sometimes does, don't you?

only if it becomes the majority opinion at a later date.

other than that, no...it doesn't.

 

[MikeK]

In the 1895 case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[31]

In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[32] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[33] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." however one of the dissenting judges pointed out that in United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1980 that the panel had unanimously decided "In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position."[34] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[35] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[36]

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

Speaking of meaningless words, tell us which law Laura Kriho violated and when she was convicted for her crime.

she wasn't acquitted because jury nullification, which is essentially contempt of court, is ok. she was acquitted because the appellate court said that the questions asked of her weren't specific enough to result in a charge of contempt.

i'm sure the jurors in mississippi who let kkk lunchers go free would agree with your views on jury nullification, though.

It's like trying to convince a rabid, female bear that you are only trying to help her cub down from the tree limb, Jillian.

i hear ya...

 

[jillian]

IOW, you cannot tell anyone what law Kriho was convicted of breaking, because there isn't one.

But thanks for the haughty condescension....You are a crackerjack at that.

it wasn't "haughty condescension".... it was pointing out that you're 100% wrong and refusing to listen...

 

[jillian]

Then we have absolute evidence that juries actually do find people not guilty, even when the judge instructs them specifically that all they can do is find on the facts and the defendant admits during the trial that he actually committed the crime he is charged with. That happened right here in California just last month despite the argument form the prosecutor that no one is above the law, and that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. The prosecutor even quoted John Adams during the closing arguments. This was despite the fact that Adams actually argued that jurors have a duty to decide the case according to his own best understanding and conscious.

William Lynch's Jury to Decide His Fate - Los Gatos, CA Patch

I read your link. I think you need to take another look at it. This is a newspaper article that covers closing arguments made to a jury prior to their deliberations and verdict. It says nothing about what the actual verdict was, much less why it was rendered or what the jury was thinking. This is merely a case where the prosecutor was afraid the jury might engage in nullification and was telling them in her closing argument (very competently, by the way) why they are not legally allowed to do so.

If anything, your linked article is one of the best pieces I have read setting forth the reasons AGAINST jury nullification.

Thanks.

what i find interesting about the case is just how difficult it was to google the actual decision as opposed to discussion ABOUT the decision.

 

[Oddball]

Why is FIJA allowed to operate in the open if they're encouraging illegal behavior?

Why haven't they been hauled into court and had their asses sued off?

Because jurors voting their conscience is perfectly lawful and legal, that's why.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why is FIJA allowed to operate in the open if they're encouraging illegal behavior?

Why haven't they been hauled into court and had their asses sued off?

Because jurors voting their conscience is perfectly lawful and legal, that's why.

They issue here isn't whether or not jurors can vote their conscience, but whether or not defense attorneys should be allowed to encourage a jury to disregard the law and judge's orders.

Is the distinction too much for you?

 

[Oddball]

If what the jurors are doing isn't unlawful, then why shouldn't they?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If what the jurors are doing isn't unlawful, then why shouldn't they?

Again, the issue is what the defense attorney can do - not the jurors.


When you're ready to grasp that, we'll talk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I get the time, I will hunt down the California Criminal Jury Instruction on the relative duties of judge and jury. Until then, you are simply going to have to either accept my personal experience or not. I am certainly not lying about what my personal experience on this point has been.

You keep missing the point.

I admit that the jury instructions forbid juries from thinking for themselves, you have no need to prove that to me. What I dispute is your claim that it is not legal for juries to ignore the judge. There are absolutely no criminal, or civil penalties, that will ever stick if a jury openly declares that they defied the judge when they brought in a verdict. That is the claim I am challenging you to disprove, not the stuff I already know.

Yes, judges "actually have the power" to tell juries they cannot nullify. In fact, it would be reversible error if they failed to do so.

Are you saying that, if a judge failed to tell a jury not to nullify, and the jury found the defendant not guilty as a result, the prosecutor could get the verdict reversed because of the faulty jury instructions?

Sorry, I have to call bullshit on this one George.

I have never disagreed with this statement. It is totally correct. And the reason it is totally correct is that you have used the word "power" and not the word, "right." Of course a jury has the power to find someone not guilty who clearly is guilty, just because they disagree with the law. But they do not have the RIGHT to do that - and that's the important difference.

I disagree, it is not an important difference, it is semantic hair splitting. That said, since using the word right bothers you, I will use the word power.

And, yes - provided they don't get caught at it, they will never be sanctioned for rendering such a verdict in much the same way that a person who never gets caught committing a murder will never be punished for it.

Even if they get caught, or admit it openly.

The problem I am having with the arguments presented on this thread in favor of nullification is that those arguing for it seem to think that juries have the legal RIGHT to nullification, which they clearly do NOT have. I think you and I may not be that far apart on this issue, provided we limit our area of agreement to the POWER of the jury to nullify and the lack of sanctions provided they don't get caught doing it.

Like I said, semantic hair splitting. As for the sanctions, I am still waiting for even a single citation of a sanction that was held up on appeal.

You a betting man, QW?

Not generally, but I might be willing to make a friendly wager.

Let me check this out - I'll get back to you.

No problem.

We were doing fine until this. This is what I was talking about earlier. No, juries do NOT have the right to nullify. Juries ARE placing themselves about the law if they decide to nullify. Yes, juries are a constitutional right - but within certain well defined and long accepted rules of the conduct of criminal trials, rules which say that juries decide facts and judges decide legal issues.

I did not see juries have a right to nullify, I said juries are a right. Defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.

Your closing sentence here is probably the best argument you could put forward for the illegality of jury nullification. You say that, in your opinion, the only way a jury could be above the law is if they convicted someone even though they believed he was innocent. Yes, that would be a jury being "above the law." And the defendant would be getting screwed there, wouldn't he?

Definitely.

Well, what's the difference? In the not guilty nullification verdict, the prosecution is getting screwed just as badly as the defense is getting screwed in the guilty verdict situation you suggest. In BOTH cases, the jury is ignoring the law. In BOTH cases, the jury is being "above the law."

The prosecution is not going to go to prison and live the rest of his life with a criminal record. Other than that, I can't really find a difference.

I know people who are in prison who I sincerely believe are innocent, and I know people who are walking the street who I think are guilty, The ones that bother me at night are the ones in prison, not the ones walking free. My morals demand I make it as hard for the prosecution as possible, and I hate that every law written since 1792 has been designed to make it easier for the government to lock people up. If the prosecution loses a case I will sleep a lot better than if they lock up someone I think should not go to prison.

By the way, isn't that why you became a defense attorney? I know you don't just tell your clients that they should roll over because the prosecutor might lose if they don't.

If it benefits the defendant, that's OK - they aren't being "above the law," but if it benefits the prosecution, that's not OK and the jury IS being "above the law," that about it?

Yeppers.

The answer is, jury nullification is not legally permissible, regardless of who benefits and who is harmed by the verdict.

I still want something other than a bunch of jury instructions that back that up.

Juries have the POWER to nullify. They do not have the RIGHT to do so.

Not going to quibble.

 

[Oddball]

If what the jurors are doing isn't unlawful, then why shouldn't they?

Again, the issue is what the defense attorney can do - not the jurors.


When you're ready to grasp that, we'll talk.

I just answered that.

For someone who claims to have an advanced degree, you sure have trouble with comprehending the English language.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then we have absolute evidence that juries actually do find people not guilty, even when the judge instructs them specifically that all they can do is find on the facts and the defendant admits during the trial that he actually committed the crime he is charged with. That happened right here in California just last month despite the argument form the prosecutor that no one is above the law, and that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. The prosecutor even quoted John Adams during the closing arguments. This was despite the fact that Adams actually argued that jurors have a duty to decide the case according to his own best understanding and conscious.

William Lynch's Jury to Decide His Fate - Los Gatos, CA Patch

I read your link. I think you need to take another look at it. This is a newspaper article that covers closing arguments made to a jury prior to their deliberations and verdict. It says nothing about what the actual verdict was, much less why it was rendered or what the jury was thinking. This is merely a case where the prosecutor was afraid the jury might engage in nullification and was telling them in her closing argument (very competently, by the way) why they are not legally allowed to do so.

If anything, your linked article is one of the best pieces I have read setting forth the reasons AGAINST jury nullification.

Thanks.

The final verdict was not guilty, despite the fact that the defendant admitted to the charge on the stand during the trial, and the very competent closing arguments, and the standard California jury instructions. The jury deadlocked on misdemeanor assault charges.

William Lynch found not guilty in Father Jerry Lindner beating case | abc7news.com

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If what the jurors are doing isn't unlawful, then why shouldn't they?

Again, the issue is what the defense attorney can do - not the jurors.


When you're ready to grasp that, we'll talk.

I just answered that.

For someone who claims to have an advanced degree, you sure have trouble with comprehending the English language.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to encourage juries to place themselves above the law?

Do you even know what a trial is for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is all they are there for. That's their charge from the judge - to judge the facts, not to re-write the laws.

Refusing to convict a person for hitting the priest that molested him as a child is not rewriting the law.

It is if the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law.

He admitted to the crime on the stand during the trial, and was found not guilty. Why don't you dash off to San Jose and demand they try every member of the jury for their criminal actions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then we have absolute evidence that juries actually do find people not guilty, even when the judge instructs them specifically that all they can do is find on the facts and the defendant admits during the trial that he actually committed the crime he is charged with. That happened right here in California just last month despite the argument form the prosecutor that no one is above the law, and that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable. The prosecutor even quoted John Adams during the closing arguments. This was despite the fact that Adams actually argued that jurors have a duty to decide the case according to his own best understanding and conscious.

William Lynch's Jury to Decide His Fate - Los Gatos, CA Patch

I read your link. I think you need to take another look at it. This is a newspaper article that covers closing arguments made to a jury prior to their deliberations and verdict. It says nothing about what the actual verdict was, much less why it was rendered or what the jury was thinking. This is merely a case where the prosecutor was afraid the jury might engage in nullification and was telling them in her closing argument (very competently, by the way) why they are not legally allowed to do so.

If anything, your linked article is one of the best pieces I have read setting forth the reasons AGAINST jury nullification.

Thanks.

what i find interesting about the case is just how difficult it was to google the actual decision as opposed to discussion ABOUT the decision.

What decision? I presented a case where a defendant that admitted the crime was found not guilty as evidence that jury nullification occurs despite the conspiracy to stamp it out of existence.

 

[George Costanza]

I have had a lengthy discussion with our appellate department on this issue of jury nullification - and I learned a little along the way. Here's the deal:

If a jury renders a nullification verdict of not guilty, practically speaking, it's game over. Not guilty verdicts cannot be questioned or set aside. As a practical matter, the jurors would not be suject to any type of sanctions because statutes in most states prohibit investigation into the state of mind of the jurors while rendering the verdict.

Is a jury nullification verdict legal? No. There is no statute that prohibits jury nullification verdicts, but the judge always instructs jurors that they are not to consider the law, only the facts. Since a jury nullification verdict is based on a consideration of the law involved, it would be contrary to the judge's instructions and, to that extent, "illegal."

Here is where it gets a little tricky. As mentioned, above, if the fact of jury nullification is not discovered until after the verdict has been rendered, there is virtually nothing that can be done about it. If it is discovered while the jury is still deliberating - a juror sends a note to the judge telling him that there are several jurors who are indicating they are going to acquit regardless of the facts because they disagree with the law - then there is something that can be done.

In this latter case, the judge would call the potential nullification jurors out and question them individually. He would again tell them what their duties are and what those duties are not. He would then ask if they will be able to follow those instructions. If they say no, they cannot in good conscience do that, they would be dismissed, and an alternate seated. Punished? Probably not.

If they say yes, they could follow the judge's instructions, they would be returned to the jury room for further deliberation. If the jury then returned a verdict of not guilty, game over. If the jury remained hung, the judge would repeat the questioning of the jurors, trying to determine the reason for the inability to reach a verdict. If some jurors admitted they were only hanging to nullify, they would be dismissed. If they didn't, deliberations would continue until the trial either reached a verdict or the judge declared a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a verdict.

Those who argue for jury nullification have something to argue about. However, claiming that jurors have a "right" to render a nullification verdict is flat wrong. They not only do not have a right to nullification, they are expressly instructed to consider only the facts and not the law, and can at ther very least, be excused from the jury if they refuse to follow those instructions.

That's pretty much all I know about the jury nullification issue. I hope it helps to clear the air a bit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is FIJA allowed to operate in the open if they're encouraging illegal behavior?

Why haven't they been hauled into court and had their asses sued off?

Because jurors voting their conscience is perfectly lawful and legal, that's why.

They issue here isn't whether or not jurors can vote their conscience, but whether or not defense attorneys should be allowed to encourage a jury to disregard the law and judge's orders.

Is the distinction too much for you?

That is not the issue.

 

[George Costanza]

Refusing to convict a person for hitting the priest that molested him as a child is not rewriting the law.

It is if the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as defined by the law.

He admitted to the crime on the stand during the trial, and was found not guilty. Why don't you dash off to San Jose and demand they try every member of the jury for their criminal actions?

I'm sorry - the link that I read (that you provided) only covered pre-verdict considerations, i.e., the closing argument. I didn't read anywhere that the ultimate verdict was not guilty. Did I miss something somewhere in the linked article?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If what the jurors are doing isn't unlawful, then why shouldn't they?

Again, the issue is what the defense attorney can do - not the jurors.


When you're ready to grasp that, we'll talk.

My guess is that you found out you were wrong in your previous position that jury nullification is always wrong and are moving the goal posts in order to not admit you were wrong.